muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 155741

> 
> Alla:
> 
> Not at all. I am saying that it cannot be called "Muggle baiting" 
> for two reasons. One of them is IMO well enough supported in canon 
> and another one less supported. Additionally of course there is no 
> **definition** of Muggle baiting, so all of it is not very precise, 
> I suppose.
> 
> First reason is what Twins say why they gave the candy to Dudley - 
> they say **not** because he was a muggle, but because he was a great 
> bullying git. I choose to believe them, since I have no canon 
> supported reason to think of Twins as liars, so to me the **intent** 
> of causing harm to Muggles is absent.

Pippin:
If the law is against teasing Muggles, (which is one of the defintions
of 'bait') then the twins are guilty, letter and spirit, IMO. 
If you tie a firecracker to a cat's tail, that is cruelty to
animals whether you do it because the cat bit your little brother or
because you don't like cats.   And if your daddy is an animal rights
activist he is going to be livid. 

It wouldn't have been very good for Arthur if someone like Rita Skeeter 
had found out about what the Twins did. Even though the Twins didn't 
have any anti-Muggle intent, Rita could certainly have made it sound 
like they did. Arthur's standing as a champion of Muggle rights could
have been damaged severely and *that* would have harmed the
Muggle community.  He had every right to be angry with the Twins on
the Muggles' behalf. The Twins' actions don't take place in a vacuum.
As Weasleys, their conduct with Muggles needs to be beyond reproach. 
But Arthur's attempt to shield the Twins from Molly's
wrath shows, I think, that he trusted they weren't going to do any
thing like that again.

Pippin